Saturday, 22 December 2012

For the 22nd Advent Podcast singer-songwriter Philip Jeays very kindly provided us with the song he performed at the 2008 Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People shows, "Death Bed" (just in case your kids are around, be warned the song features some colourful language).

Phony war by Paul Sims – The government and the religious establishment seem determined to wage war on secularism, and are making themselves looking very silly in the process. Our News Editor surveyed the British culture wars.

Circumcision: time to cut it out by Toby Lichtig – In June a German court ruling against circumcision brought the issue to the front of the news agenda, and exposed strong feelings among secularists, many of whom feel the practice should be banned. We asked Toby Lichtig, himself a circumcised secular Jew, to negotiate the ethical minefield

I may as well be a unicorn by Jamila Bey– What is it like being an African-American atheist, growing up in a culture steeped in religiosity? US journalist Jamila Bey wondered whether she really exists at all.

Malicious intent by Beena Sarwar – Blasphemy hit the headlines in 2012, with violent, shocking results. Pakistani journalist Beena Sarwar looked at the situation in her home country, where punitive blasphemy laws with their roots in the colonial period are used to prop up conservative Islam and perpetrate horrific human rights abuses.

2013 is going to be a big year for the Rationalist Association. We're launching a brand new website (see a preview page), which will expand our online publishing and grow our membership, and we're planning a series of events.

So we're going to need some help. First thing to say is at the moment we are looking for volunteers - meaning the positions will not be paid. We can pay some expenses but at the moment we are not offering salaried positions. We are a charity and looking for people who share our aims to donate some time.

If you're not put off by that here's the deal: we need extremely bright, competent and confident people to help us out with online publishing, editing, marketing, social media, event co-ordination, and whatever else comes up.

If you might be in a position to donate a day or two on a regular basis this is what we need:

People with the following skills:

High level of literacy and ability to write clear compelling prose
Attention to detail (including ability to proof read)
Strong online skills including familiarity with Twitter, Facebook, CMS
Ability to work professionally in an office environment
Ability to travel to our London Bridge office

A volunteer position would ideally suit someone studying journalism or a related field, though we'll consider every application carefully on its own merits.

Hours and length of the volunteer period are negotiable.

If you are interested please send your CV with a covering note to info@newhumanist.org.uk.

We'll be looking at applications in January and will contact appropriate candidates then. We'll try and acknowledge all applications but can't guarantee a response as we are a small team (which is why we need help!).

Over 3,000 readers stopped by the New Humanist blog to place their vote to decide the winner of the 2012 Bad Faith Award, and following a very open contest we can announce that a deserving individual has joined the roster of past winners, which includes Nadine Dorries, Pope Benedict XVI and Sarah Palin.

In August 2012, Todd Akin, who represents Missouri’s second district in the United States Congress, caused a storm when he appeared on a local news station to discuss his anti-abortion position. Asked for his view on whether women who become pregnant as a result of rape should have access to abortion, Akin said:

“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Akin later apologised, but his comments have been widely cited during the US election campaign as an example of the so-called Republican “war on women”. They cost him his run at a Senate seat for Missouri in November, and some have even suggested they helped cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election. Still, at least he has the consolation prize of our Bad Faith Award.

Honourable mentions must also go to to some of this year’s runners-up. In second place was Prince Charles, who was able to secure a medal position thanks to some frankly outstanding electioneering by New Humanist reader John Hind, who took to our blog in an effort to try to persuade voters that the heir to the throne deserved to usurp the Bad Faith crown as a special “lifetime achievement” award for his services to irrationalism.

In third place were the Catholic authorities in Mumbai, who have played a key role in ensuring that India’s leading rationalist, Sanal Edamaruku, has had to leave the country in order to avoid imprisonment for blasphemy, after he committed the shameful offence of pointing out that the supposed “holy water” dripping from a crucifix statue in fact originated from a blocked toilet.

So, with Todd Akin deemed 2012’s leading enemy of reason, that’s it for the 2012 Bad Faith Award. But that’s no reason to lower your guard – nominations for 2013 are open now, so if you think of anyone to put forward, leave a comment here or email us at editor@newhumanist.org.uk.

Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Books are great aren't they. Full of words, and sentences Some even have punctuation. We love them. If you share our love you may enjoy this list of the top five books of the year, as decided by our totally scientific star system. We present them in the order in which they were reviewed.

1. The Dead Hand: The Untold story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy by David Hoffman

What: A comprehensive look at the global arms race, the ending of the Cold War - and the crucial roles played by Reagan and Gorbachev – and a warning about the continuing threat posed by stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons.

Reviewer's verdict: "Hoffman's superb account of the twists and turns in the struggle to end the arms race is detailed gripping and monumental, a worthy winner of the Pulitzer Prize."

What: The haunting memoir of a music journalist who suddenly lost his hearing

Reviewer's verdict: "His essential question is whether he created the vast – and now possibly useless – record collection that dominates his lounge, or whether it created him. His attempt to answer it will cause you to appreciate your favourite music as if you're hearing it for the first time."

What: Superstar French intellectual turns his ironic gaze onto the relationship between science and religion – and upsets many an atheist scientist in the process.

Reviewer's verdict: "Readers with a limited appetite for paradox may quickly tire of Latour; but they should not close the book without looking at the final pages. He concludes with a brief and brilliant essay... Abjuring facetiousness for a while, Latour offers a moving comparison between religious words and words of love; their truth he says is a truth of transformation rather than a truth of information."

What: A new set of short stories, in a contemporary Joycean mode, from one of Ireland's most celebrated writers

Reviewer's verdict: "Though in tune with the buzzing sense of the modern – mobile phones, Aerlingus, the Internet all play their part – O'Connor never forgets the backdrop of Irish Literature against which he paints. This collection is beautiful; full of pure, simple truths that linger long in the mind."

What: Much lauded "faction" memoir from what the press release insisted is "Europe's New Literary Star".

Reviewer's Verdict: "It is entirely possible that this novel is a masterpiece, and has just been badly served by a translation which would have us believe that teenage boys call each other "lying sod" and "lying toad" in the same breath; which prizes obscurity: "In art that which was beyond was synonymous with society, by which is meant the human masses which fully encompassed its concept and ideas of validity"; and which describes a car seat as "inviolable". But I don’t think so. I pity the poor translator. After all, it must have been hard to translate something so soporific. This is a monstrous exercise in egotism, a gigantic literary joke whose only redeeming feature is that it isn't any longer than it is."

Alber Saber has been released on bail, but still faces a
three-year sentence for blasphemy

Alber Saber, the 27-year-old Egyptian atheist who was last week sentenced to three years in prison for "insulting an Abrahamic religion", has been released on bail pending appeal.

Index on Censorship's Egypt correspondent Shahira Amin was able to interview Saber as he was signing papers for his appeal at the court. Stating that “no price is too high for freedom”, he vowed to continue to fight for free expression in Egypt, and said that he was lucky to be alive after facing violent attacks from fellow inmates in Cairo's El Marg prison.

Saber's lawyer Ahmed Ezzat expressed his concerns for religious freedom in Egypt under Islamist President Mohamed Morsi, pointing out that a new draft constitution contains a ban on “insulting prophets.

Saturday, 15 December 2012

In the 15th Advent Podcast, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant tell Robin Ince which thinkers should be celebrated at Christmas, and reveal their surprising decisions to convert to Christianity and creationism.

A 27-year-old man from Cairo was today sentenced to three years in prison for "insulting religion", in the latest development in a case that has prompted global outcry from human rights activists concerned about the future of freedom of belief in post-revolutionary Egypt.

As we reported in September, Alber Saber was arrested at the height of the controversy over the crude anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, after an angry mob gathered outside his home and accused him of editing a Facebook page for Egyptian atheists and posting links to the offending film. Following his arrest, Saber was physically assaulted with a razor blade in his jail cell by a fellow prisoner.

Saber was charged and convicted under Article 98(w) of the Egyptian Penal Code, which outlaws
the use of religion to “promote extremist thoughts with the intention of
creating dissent or insulting a Abrahamic religion” or “undermining
national unity”.

Reports suggested that Saber was expected to be released today following payment of bail of $167, pending appeal, but it is not yet clear whether this has been permitted by the court.

The report covers laws affecting freedom of belief and conscience in 60 countries, and lists many individual cases involving the denial of atheists' right to exist, the curtailing of their freedom of belief and expression, the revoking of their right to citizenship, the restriction of their right to marry, the obstruction of their access to public education, bans on their holding public office, the prevention of their working for the state, the criminalisation of their criticism of religion, and the execution of them for apostasy.

In addition to the case of Saber, whose photo appears on the cover, the report covers a large number of cases, including:

In Indonesia, Alexander Aan was jailed for two-and-a-half years for Facebook posts on atheism.

In Tunisia, two young atheists, Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji, were sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for Facebook postings that were judged blasphemous.

“This is pure injustice … I can’t believe during the investigations the boy was asked about his religion and how he practices it, this is none of their business, it’s been three months and I can’t eat or sleep because I can only see him 10 minutes per week. I am calling for Alber to be released, he is just someone who says what he believes, and on the other hand [for the authorities to] try to catch the people who are really inciting violence.”

“This is an outrageous verdict and sentence for a person whose only ‘crime’ was to post his opinions online. This conviction will ruin his life, whether he serves the sentence or not. The court should have thrown the case out on the first day, yet now he’s been branded as having insulted religion.”

The Amnesty release also sheds some light on the legal process that surrounded his case:

"The activist’s lawyer told Amnesty International that his client’s trial was marred by the judge’s refusal to allow the defence to call key witnesses – including the arresting and investigating officers, and the individuals who first filed the complaints against Alber Saber Ayad.

While he was held at Cairo’s El Marg Police Station, a police officer reportedly incited other detainees to attack him. During his trial he was also held in poor conditions in Tora Prison – his cell was next to a sewer and lacked light or clean water until human rights organizations filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor on his behalf."

In this digital age, companies will pay thousands of pounds for a winning social media strategy, cooked up by bright young things in swish start-up offices in our metropolitan centres.

But the rules on best practice may have to be rewritten now that Pope Benedict XVI (followers: 672,576, and that's just for his English language account) has sent his first tweet. Because, really, your mundane 140 character messages are pretty worthless if they're not sent at a special ceremony before an audience of thousands gathered specifically to watch you do it.

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

In the 11th Advent Podcast, comedian and actor Chris Addison decides to nominate a well-known populariser of science for a special annual celebration. He would also like a Spinning Jenny for Christmas.

The Minister for Woman and Equalities Maria Miller has this afternoon unveiled the details of the government's proposal to legislate for gay marriage, with a bill set to be introduced into parliament into January.

As expected the legislation will allow for civil same-sex marriages from 2014, but Miller also revealed the details of the rules that will govern the conducting of religious same-sex marriage ceremonies. Religious groups will be able to conduct same-sex marriages if their governing has chosen to opt in to doing so, with the exception of the Church of England, which will be legally banned from offering gay marriages. Miller explained that this is because the Church has "explicitly stated" its opposition to the reforms, and therefore the government will "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

Miller also explained that there will be a "quadruple legal lock" to ensure that no religious organisation or religious minister will be compelled to carry out gay marriage ceremonies against their wishes. As well as the Church of England band and need for the organisation's governing body to opt in, no individual minister will be compelled to conduct a ceremony, and the 2010 Equality Act will be amended to ensure no one can be prosecuted under it for refusing to conduct a ceremony.
As the proposals were debated in Parliament, opponents rose to condemn the plans. Conservative MP Peter Bone said "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?", and Andrew Selous, also a Conservative, quoted Mark 10 and Matthew 18 to point out that gay marriage runs contrary to Christ's teaching. Meanwhile, Jim Shannon of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party made up a statistic and stated that "99.9%" of his constituents are opposed to the proposals.

Considering today's news that the percentage of people in England & Wales identifying as non-religious in the Census has risen 25 per cent, there could be no better time to highlight a new campaign to send a copy of the year's best atheist book to every school in the land.

The Young Atheist's Handbook by Alom Shaha is a riveting personal account of the author's journey from growing up in a strict Muslim environment on a south-east London council estate, to the teenage realisation that he did not believe in the religion followed by the majority of those within his community. Alongside this moving personal story, Alom offers his thoughts and advice on how to square the big questions of morality and existence with a rejection of theistic explanations.

Having enjoyed the book himself, science teacher and blogger Ian Horswell had the idea of launching a campaign to get the book into schools:

"Despite knowing Alom through his work as a science teacher and writer online, I was amazed by the evocative prose in his book and the challenges he faced moving from nominal believer to outspoken freethinker. It made me realise how fortunate many of us are to be able to take for granted our own freedom to believe, or not, in the faith of our parents. It seemed to me that the very students who needed to read Alom’s book would find it hard to buy for themselves, so instead I wondered if we could place a copy in every secondary school library."

The results of the 2011 Census, published this morning, show that the percentage of people in England and Wales identifying as Christian has fallen to 59.3 per cent, down from 71.8 per cent in 2001. Twenty-five per cent stated that they had "No religion", up from 15 per cent in 2001.

The key points from the religion section of the Census, as reported on the Office for National Statistics website, are as follows:

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population). The second largest religious group were Muslims with 2.7 million people (4.8 per cent of the population).

14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.

The religion question was the only voluntary question on the 2011 census and 7.2 per cent of people did not answer the question.

Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent). There were increases in the other main religious group categories, with the number of Muslims increasing the most (from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent).

In 2011, London was the most diverse region with the highest proportion of people identifying themselves as Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu and Jewish. The North East and North West had the highest proportion of Christians and Wales had the highest proportion of people reporting no religion.

Knowsley was the local authority with the highest proportion of people reporting to be Christians at 80.9 per cent and Tower Hamlets had the highest proportion of Muslims at 34.5 per cent (over 7 times the England and Wales figure). Norwich had the highest proportion of the population reporting no religion at 42.5 per cent.

The rise in the number of atheists comes in spite of a question widely believed to lead respondents towards selecting a religion instead of the "No religion" option. The Census asks, "What is your religion?", and secular campaigners argue that this involves an assumption that those responding have a religion. In the run up to the 2011 census the British Humanist Association ran a high profile campaign to raise awareness of the fact that "No religion" can be selected by those with no religious affiliation.

When a less leading question is asked, surveys often reveal the proportion of Christians to be below 50 per cent. For instance, in 2011 the highly respected British Social Attitudes Survey, which asks "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: which?", found that 50 per cent of respondents had no religion, compare with 44 per cent who identified with a Christian denomination.

Monday, 10 December 2012

We do not set out to offend, but given that our job is to make trenchant critiques of religion it will sometimes happen that people get offended or upset by what we say. We're sorry if we have hurt anyone's feelings, but we believe in free speech and reserve the right to express the truth as we see it, no matter if this offends. We will not be intimidated, and stand firm in our commitment to reason, science and sacrilege.

Here is the most recent letter of complaint we have received. We respect the right of the sender to feel offended but we will never back down and never surrender. If we did society as we know it would crumble and a great darkness would descend over the land. And it would get quite chilly.

Dear Sir/Madam,I recently came across an article in Volume 124, Issue 2 entitled "God Trumps Part II", which, in conjunction with an earlier article entitled "God Trumps", I find to be highly offensive and disrespectful to my beliefs and the beliefs of many other members of my faith.I, and many other members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, find it offensive to see that our deeply held religious beliefs do not seem to merit the same care and attention your magazine affords to other religions. Pastafarians constantly find themselves unfairly discriminated against, and in many cases the sacred religious truths we choose to live our lives by are made the subject of ridicule.Our faith is relatively young, I will admit. Our sacred prophet, Bobby Henderson, was only touched by His Noodly Appendage as recently as 2005, but since then, millions of people have seen the light and converted. We are one of the fastest growing religious groups worldwide, and I, and many others feel that this is not reflected in the media. I hope your magazine will be more respectful of our beliefs in the future.Yours faithfully,

[name redacted]

Readers may be interested to know that we are developing a web app of God Trumps so the game can be played online. We pledge that it will never, ever include the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So there [name redacted]!

On the tenth day of our Advent Podcasts, cartoonist Martin Rowson looks back with great sentimentality on how we lived before the dawn of civilisation, and says we should replace Christmas with a celebration of the anthropologist Christopher Boehm.

Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Thursday, 6 December 2012

On Day 6, Robin Ince talks to Dave Gorman about the mathematician Paul Erdős, and how he gives his name to maths' very own version of the Bacon Number. Gorman would also like a Soda Stream for Christmas.Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

On the fifth day of our Advent Podcasts, Robin Ince talks to comedian and novelist Alexei Sayle about which scientist he'd like to honour with an annual celebration. And listen out for his choice of the scientific invention he'd like to receive for Christmas.

Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Tuesday, 4 December 2012

On the fourth day of the New Humanist Advent Podcasts, comedian and writer (and creator of our legendary God Trumps) Christina Martin tells us why she'd like to replace Christmas with a day in honour of Vasily Dokuchaev, the founder of modern soil science.

Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Sunday, 2 December 2012

In the second of the New Humanist Advent Podcasts, biologist and leading atheist blogger PZ Myers tells us which scientist from history he'd like to honour with an annual celebration, and which scientific gift he'd most like to receive.

Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Saturday, 1 December 2012

Back in 2008, when our Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People shows were in their first year, we cooked up an idea with Robin Ince that we're still very fond of. Every day through Advent, we uploaded a short podcast featuring a Nine Lessons performer or a friend of the magazine in which they answered two simple questions:

If they could hold an annual celebration in honour of any scientist from history, who would it be?

Which science-related gift would they most like to receive?

As it's now been four years, and Nine Lessons is celebrating its fifth year, we thought we'd bring them back. So be sure to check in every day through December for a short podcast featuring a well-known voice from comedy or science – later contributors include Richard Dawkins, Josie Long, Simon Singh, Chris Addison, Ann Druyan and Ricky Gervais.

But you don't have to wait until later for the big names – to get us started, here's none other than Stephen Fry.

Head over to our Soundcloud channel to subscribe to updates, download files, and listen to other Rationalist Association podcasts.

Friday, 30 November 2012

In a welcome development for science education campaigners, the government has announced that free schools will now be required to teach evolution.

Since the implementation of the government's flagship free school policy following the general election in 2010, the approval of a number of schools run by evangelical Christian organisations has prompted concerns that pupils in state-funded schools would be taught creationism in science lessons. Campaigners, including the British Humanist Association, have long argued for firm rules requiring the proper teaching of evolution, and this will now be the case following a change to the "model funding agreement" for free schools, effective from 2013.

The new clause in the model funding agreement states:

"The Academy Trust shall make provision for the teaching of evolution as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory."

The development has been welcomed by the BHA's Chief Executive Andrew Copson, although he notes that there are still concerns about the fact that Christians with a track record of promoting creationism, such as those behind Grindon Hall Christian School in Sunderland, have received approval from the government:

"A requirement to teach evolution in free schools is an excellent additional safeguard against state-funded creationist schools and must be welcomed.

"However, we continue to be concerned about the three free schools recently approved which are supportive of teaching creationism as science and which we must worry will continue to find ways to circumvent a ban in practice."

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Well here's cheery news. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation held their awards for their Faith Shorts film competition on Monday, and of the three prize winners two were atheists. We're quick to jump on the TB Foundation when they promote faith guff so we should make a point of saying well done when they don't.

The event was pretty starry by all accounts – with a video message from Hugh Jackman (sporting rather nice Wolverine sideburns) and speeches from TB and Jimmy Wales (who you may know from such fund raising messages as 'give Wikipedia $5'). You can see for yourself if you want.

Of the two "atheist films" our favourite is the winner of the 18-27 category,Death Bed the Musical, the charming stop-motion animation musical by 25-year old Israeli Liat Har-Gil (below).

Accepting her prize Liat said: “I myself am not a religious person but I believe that promoting an understanding between different religions is very important and should be celebrated. I am grateful that the Foundation understood the message of my movie: the dangers of religious intolerance”.
Also worth a look is The Mirror, by 15-year-old Mudit Muraka from New
Delhi, who won the Face to Faith category of the Faith Shorts film
competition.

Friday, 23 November 2012

We like to think that one of our jobs here at New Humanist is to bring together secularists from around the world and get them into productive dialogue. While secularism and humanism are common, global values, they are inflected differently across the world and require different strategies and tactics, and much can be learned from talking to people working in different settings with different tactics.

Of course debate will also flush out disagreement.

One such case is that of American secularist Jacques Berlinerblau's new book, just published in the US, called How To Be Secular: A Call To Arms For Religious Freedom. As the title might suggest Berlinerblau is attempting to reframe the argument about secularism in the US and to distinguish secularism from atheism (a confusion that prevents the kind of cross-faith coalition that is necessary for secularism, he says). We gave the book to the prominent British secularist writer Kenan Malik to review for our current issue. This is where it got a bit tricky. Despite finding points of agreement with Berlinerblau, Malik took issue with some of its central claims. Berlinerblau asked for a right to respond, which we gave him. In his response he claimed that Malik has misread him, and taken descriptive argument for prescription.

I have mixed feelings about this disagreement. Not only do I like both Berlinerblau and Malik personally, but I think they represent some of the best thinking on secularism on either side of the Atlantic. I'd like them to be allies, or at least have a productive debate. Because, underneath the issues about whether Malik has misread (he insists he has not), or Berlinerblau has misrepresented Malik's criticisms (he says he hasn't), is what I think is a really interesting and important argument about what secularism is, and isn't, and how best to preserve and promote it. This argument, which emerges a few paragraphs into Malik's latest post, is about secularism's relationship to democracy, and whether and to what degree we secularists should insist on the separation of church and state as a minimum condition. These questions feed into what is an important comparative debate about secularism and politics across the world.

I hope Berlinerblau wants to respond again on the two substantive points Malik raises. We need to hear more intelligent discussion among secularists, about how best to achieve and secure secular society. If he does respond we'll let you know.

Legislation imposing strict criminal penalties on homosexuality could pass in Uganda imminently, after legislators resurrected a bill which has appeared on the country's parliamentary agenda on numerous occasions over the last three years.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was first submitted to the Ugandan parliament in 2009, and in its early stages would have allowed for the imposition of the death penalty in certain cases. When the bill was last on the agenda in May 2011 the bill's author David Bahati said capital punishment was "something we have moved away from", but the law would still have left gay Ugandans facing strict criminal penalties.

While it was hoped that the bill had perhaps disappeared for good when it was not passed last year, there has always been the danger that it would resurface, and it has been reported that Uganda's parliament speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, has suggested that it could now be passed
"as a Christmas gift" to Ugandans.

The bill has this week appeared on the Ugandan parliament's order of business as “order of business to follow”, which means that it could be debated at any time in the next few working days. If it is debated, it is expected that the country's legislators would vote in favour of its passage.

Ugandan gay rights activists have vowed to carry on resisting the bill, with Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), saying that his organisation "will continue to fight until we are free of this legislation". For campaigners in Uganda, gay rights are a life and death issue – in 2010 a national newspaper, Rolling Stone, published a list of names of gay Ugandans, alongside the headline "hang them", and in January 2011 on of SMUG's best-known activists, David Kato, was murdered in his home.

In response to the news of the possible imminent passing of the anti-gay law, a petition has been launched calling on Rebecca Kadaga and Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, to withdraw the bill.

Our Bad Faith Award poll closes this coming Monday, and after several weeks of voting the US Congressman Todd Akin is currently on course to take the 2012 prize, on account of his August comments regarding pregnancy and "legitimate rape".

However, in the interests of keeping the ball of unreason rolling, I thought I'd share a comment we received on the blog this morning from one of our readers, John Hind.

John was the man who put forward Prince Charles back when we were inviting nominations, arguing that the heir to the throne deserved to seize the 2012 Bad Faith crown as a special "lifetime acheivement" award for his services to irrationalism.

He returned to the blog this morning to make an impassioned last-minute plea for his fellow New Humanist readers to vote for Charles, posting a comment so good I just had to share it here. John's clearly a master electioneer when it comes to the Bad Faith game – see if he can influence your vote:

The case for Charles You could vote for one of the usual ideological nutters from the right wing of Christianity or Islam, but at best it would be water off a duck's back and at worst the opprobrium of a bunch of, in most cases, foreign atheists would be seen as a badge of honor. By my reckoning that leaves Charles, Baroness Warsi and the Indian Catholics. Worthy candidates all!

The latter are tempting, but again the verdict of foreign atheists is unlikely to do good and may well do harm. Shaming their fellow Catholics or Christians into taking an openly critical stand might be more constructive.

Warsi would be a deserving winner, but she makes enemies easily and already has plenty. Is it worth making common cause with the thinly veiled prejudice of the backwoods of the Tory party and the (entirely unveiled) misogynists and theocrats of her own religion just to add one more voice to this discordant choir?

Or we could take this opportunity to send a last minute signal to the heir to the monarchy reminding him that multifaith does not cut it when more of your future subjects are free of faith than profess any one faith. In a constitutional monarchy, the king or queen cannot afford to take sides in any controversy; just steering clear of party politics is not enough. You cannot afford to alienate any significant group of those who must accept you even though they have no say in your selection. And it is not just faith. He openly supports all manner of irrational causes from quack medicine to the mystical, neo-feudal wing of the green movement. Hell, some of us even like contemporary architecture! Think of this as an opportunity to send a warning shot across his bows before it is too late!

Shameless personal plea: Since the editors have kindly (and uniquely) identified me personally as the sponsor of this nomination, it would be cruel indeed if I lost any chance of a place on the honors list and still failed to bag my man!

Vote Charles!

Can John's plea help raise Charles to the status of a last-minute Bad Faith usurper? Place your vote below (read up on the other nominees here), and remember – the polls close on Monday 26 November.

Martin Rowson illustrates the Bishops in
the Lords for New Humanist back in 2007

Yesterday I wrote a brief post asking for your views (i.e. non-religious views) on the Church of England's vote to continue preventing the ordination of female bishops, in which I raised a few possible atheist positions on the issue, without committing to any opinions of my own.

The truth is, I wasn't really sure what I thought about the matter. On the whole I'm fairly indifferent (why does what the Church of England does matter to me?), while believing that any organisation in receipt of public funds ought to comply with equality law and provide both men and women with access to the top jobs. Ultimately, I'd be quite keen on seeing disestablishment become a 21st-century idea – it's always puzzled me why this has been seen as a crazy idea for the past 100 years or so, rather than simple secular common sense.

For secularists, one of the most infuriating aspects of the Church's established status is the enduring presence of 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, and as such it wasn't a huge surprise this morning to see a petition going round suggesting that if the Church is unwilling to accept women bishops, it should no longer be allowed to retain its automatic seats in the Lords.

Entitled "No women Bishops, no automatic seats in the House of Lords", the petition, aimed at the Government through its official e-petitions site, says:

"The Church has chosen to be a sexist organisation by refusing women the right to hold highest leadership positions and therefore should not be allowed automatic seats in the House of Lords, as this clearly does not comply with the spirit of UK Equality law."

At first sight, this may seem like a good argument – if an organisation can't comply with equality legislation, why should it be handed seats by right in the legislature? However, in my opinion this is the wrong basis for arguing for the removal of the Bishops from the Lords, because it implies that the status of the Lords Spiritual is a problem because of the Church's structure, rather than because it is anti-secular and anti-democratic (we'll leave aside arguments about the Lords and democracy in general for now) to afford a religious domination the special privilege of 26 seats in Parliament.

While it could be argued that there are pragmatic reasons for using the women bishops decision to highlight the absurdity of Bishops in the Lords, for me it is a mistake to build an argument for their abolition around this, because it implies that if the Church of England was able to resolve the issue the presence of its clerics in our legislature would be fine.

The reason I want the Bishops out of Parliament is simple – it's because I believe that religious representatives (of any stripe) should not be given an unelected role in the legislative process, and not because I have an issue with the internal gender politics of the Church of England.

In the end, I don't really care about whether the Church allows women to be bishops. But I do care that 26 unelected clerics are afforded special privilege in the making of the laws of the land.

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Sanal Edamaruku at Church of Our Lady of Velan Kanni
in Vile Parle, Mumbai, 10 March 2012

A large audience gathered at London's Free Word Centre this lunchtime for a free event organised by the Rationalist Association and Index on Censorship in support of Sanal Edamaruku, the Indian rationalist facing blasphemy charges after he debunked a supposed miracle involving a dripping crucifix at a Catholic Church in Mumbai. The event was a panel discussion featuring Sanal alongside the retired appeals court judge Stephen Sedley, the distinguished philosopher Richard Sorabji, and the journalist Salil Tripathi, who has written widely on free speech and Hindu nationalism in India.

First to speak was Sanal Edamaruku, who began by saying that his main aim is to go back to India. He is currently staying in Europe as he faces arrest without the guarantee of bail back home, but he said he wants to go back because he has started a job that he wants to complete. There are two Indias, in Sanal's view – the modern, progressive India, and the India controlled by holy men, astrologers and tantrics, underpinned by the caste system. The modern India has to win, because an India with a prominent role on the world stage must not be controlled by the forces of reaction.

Sanal said that his aim has always been to promote the "scientific temper" in India, fulfilling one of the "fundamental duties" outlined in the country's constitution. For decades, Sanal and his colleagues in the Indian Rationalist Association have done this by promoting reason and humanism, and by going out and demonstrating the science behind supposed miracles through what they call "Rationalist Reality Theatre", which involves travelling to villages, posing as holy men, and performing "miracles" before pulling back the curtain and revealing their scientific basis.

Sanal strives to remove the fear of astrologers and holy men held by many in India, and he is able to carry out his work because the constitution protects the right to free speech, as well as the country's status as a secular state.

However, he has recently fallen foul of another aspect of India's legal system, namely the penal code established by the British colonial authorities in 1860. On 10 March this year, Sanal was invited to attend the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan Kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai, in order to investigate water that was dripping from a crucifix statue. After establishing that this was water from a nearby leaking pipe that was travelling up the statue by capillary action, Sanal appeared on prime time Mumbai TV, where representatives of the church, three local Catholic groups, and the Auxiliary Bishop of Mumbai Agnelo Rufino Gracias attacked him over his debunking of the miracle. Sanal suggested to the Bishop that the Church has a long history of "miracle mongering", and laughed when the Bishop argued that science would not have spread through Europe were it not for the Catholic Church.

The next day, Sanal heard that 17 complaints had been filed against him at various police stations, all invoking Article 295a of the Indian penal code, which covers "Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or
any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs". Having been denied "anticipatory bail", which would have allowed him to stay and fight the accusations without fear of pre-trial imprisonment, Sanal has been forced to come to Europe, where he must currently remain in order to avoid arrest.

The second of the panel to speak was Stephen Sedley, who began by pointing out that we are not so far removed from India's legal situation here in the UK. We have abolished our blasphemy law, but that has effectively been replaced by the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act. So far this has not been used in an intolerant way, but it is not impossible to imagine it being used in such a way in the future.

With reference to India, Sedley outlined some relevant articles of the constitution. Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. However, the wording does not suggest a comparable right to propagate atheism, which is a common problem around the world – freedom of religion can often imply freedom only for those who have a religion.

Regarding the Indian Penal Code and Article 295a, Sedley pointed out that one of the problems with a law protecting "religious feelings" is that those who claim to be insulted are often able to define the terrain, which puts those accused of blasphemy and giving offence on the back foot.

Next, Professor Richard Sorabji examined some of the philosophical problems around free speech. He spoke of the American case, where many believe in the uninhibited right to free speech, and asked whether there does need to be some restriction in order to protect weak groups. Can we find a balance which would prevent the misuse of the law in order to prosecute someone like Sanal, whose intention was clearly to speak out against fraud, while protecting weak groups from oppression by the majority?

Sorabji said he previously thought "malicious intent" could be a sufficient protection, but in light of Sanal's case (Article 295a refers to "malicious acts") he is now unsure whether that is enough. Perhaps there needs to be a clause in hate speech laws which protects "reasonable argument"?

The last of the panel to speak was Salil Tripathi, whotalked about what he described as a "bleak scenario" surrounding Hindu nationalism in India. He referred to an incident that occurred this week following the death of the Hindu nationalist leader Bal Thackeray, when a girl was arrested for posting an innocuous Facebook status update criticising the closing of businesses for a day because of his death. (Staggeringly, her friend was also arrested for "liking" the status.) Tripathi said that the limits of free speech in India are no longer defined by the law, but by bullies and thugs. There is a problem with the supposed "reasonable restrictions" on free speech, because they are no longer applied in a reasonable way.

Finally, Sanal Edamaruku spoke again to outline where his case goes next. He said that he has two options. The first is to reach an agreement with the Catholic complainants. The Archbishop of Bombay, Oswald Cardinal Gracias, has said that if Sanal apologises for the "offence" he has caused then he will see to it that the complaints are withdrawn (the Catholic authorities in Mumbai have denied that they have had any involvement in the complaints, but Sanal sees this as evidence of their influence).

However, Sanal will not apologise, because he has done nothing wrong. He wishes to fight the complaints, and would like to go to the Indian Supreme Court, where he can demonstrate that Article 295a is in direct conflict with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in India's constitution. He will continue to push for anticipatory bail, which would enable him to return to home to Delhi and fight the case, while continuing his wider work of advancing rationalism in India.

Two of the three houses of the General Synod – the bishops and the clergy – had voted in favour of women bishops by the required two thirds majority, but in the third house, the laity, 132 votes in favour and 74 against meant that the vote fell six short of the required majority.

It's a highly controversial decision which has seen the Church condemned as being out of touch with 21st century society, but where should an atheist stand?

There are quite a few ways of looking at it. If you're the sort of atheist who is strongly opposed to religious institutions, perhaps you will be glad to see the established Church being exposed as a reactionary institution in this way.

Or, to take a different slant on that, if you're less interested in what religious institutions get up to, perhaps you find it hard to really care what happens within a Church whose relevancy to national life has been declining for several decades.

But then there's the equality argument. The government has suggested that it will not use equality legislation to force the Church to accept women bishops, but shouldn't all employers, particularly those in receipt of public funds, be forced to comply with equality law?

And what of the Church's position as the Established church? If it wants to continue as such, surely it has to comply with equality law?

Which brings us to a final thought – if the Church has decided to take this reactionary path, surely the time has come for a serious debate about a grand old idea: disestablishment.

Those are just a few quick thoughts on how an atheist might view this story. We're keen to hear what you have to say – please do let us know in the comments.

Apparently, Benedict XVI has written a new book Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, in which he points out that the tradition of displaying oxen and donkeys in nativity scenes has no grounding in scripture. He also says that there is no basis for believing that angels sang to the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ, thereby undermining the traditional reason for the singing of carols.

However, while he may be prepared to question the traditions of oxen and carols, the Mail is able to report that "there is one part of the Nativity story he is firm on - that Mary was a virgin and Christ was conceived with the Holy Spirit alone."Next week: Killjoy bear crushes forest traditions – but holds firm on bathroom arrangements.

Monday, 19 November 2012

The solar eclipse of 13 November 2012, photographed by Francisco Diego

When a total solar eclipse occurred over Australasia and the south Pacific last Tuesday, 13 November, the Daily Telegraph's blogging vicar, Rev Peter Mullen, used it as an opportunity to chide Richard Dawkins (and by extension all atheists, of whom he is the official representative) for his belief that such spectacular occurrences are the mere result of "cosmic coincidence".

"The sun is huge and ninety-three million miles away and the small moon is in our backyard, a mere quarter of a million miles away. Yet in an eclipse their discs precisely cover each other. Don’t therefore imagine that anyone designed it that way. It’s just a cosmic coincidence, isn’t it, Professor Dawkins?"

Well, actually Rev Mullen, that's precisely what it is. A few days after the eclipse, we received an email from our friend Dr Francisco Diego, Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at University College London, who had been in northern Australia on a field trip to observe the eclipse.

In addition to attaching this stunning photograph of the corona at the moment of eclipse, Francisco sent us a short refutation of Rev Mullen's piece, which he'd read while staying in Singapore on his way back to London:

"I read with interest Rev Mullen's comments about the total solar eclipse I just saw from the Australian bush. I agree that this kind of news has an uplifting effect compared with what we do to our planet and our fellow human beings.

Yes, the event has effects in some of us that go beyond the scientific opportunity to better understand the Sun. This was my 20th eclipse expedition and still I experience those feelings of primeval terror when the daytime landscape plunges into darkness in only seconds and the sun goes away to be replaced by what looks like a sinister cosmic eye. Nature gives us amazing displays that hit the core of our deep emotions, inspiring a kind of spirituality without the need of supernatural intervention.

If Rev Mullen thinks that the AVERAGE similarity of apparent sizes between the sun and the moon that we see today goes beyond a simple coincidence, I feel that he should be aware of the way the Solar System formed and the cataclysmic way the moon formed. There are plenty of cosmic coincidences in these processes. But there is another one: it has been measured that the distance from the earth to the moon is increasing a few centimetres every year, so in the future, the moon will be so far away that its apparent size will not be enough to cover the sun completely.